On Monday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stood onstage at the Treasury Department in Washington to publicly unveil the Trump administration’s latest move against the Islamic Republic.

Since US President Donald Trump’s April ceasefire halted the joint US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran, Washington and Tehran have been locked in a cycle of failed diplomacy and intermittent escalation. To break the stalemate, Bessent told reporters, the US would now unleash “an economic onslaught against Iran’s financial connections around the globe.”

“Our objective is to sever every economic lifeline that sustains this tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone,” the secretary told reporters, warning that countries not joining US sanctions would “share in the isolation” of Iran and that Trump was already calling world leaders on the matter.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the move and said Tuesday that he had urged Trump during their July meeting to “tighten the siege” on Iran by targeting regime support networks.

Some have asked whether the bombast will truly be backed up by strict imposition of the promised economic straitjacket. But even if the measures are fully enforced, it’s far from certain whether the sanctions will push Iran toward meaningful concessions, bring the regime closer to collapse, or simply cause the regime to dig in further, entrenching the standoff.

For Washington, the effectiveness of economic pressure, like any future military or diplomatic strategy, depends on what endgame with Iran it is pursuing.

Recent Israeli and international reports signal that the US has no plans to return to full-scale fighting, reflecting Trump’s desire to avoid a prolonged war. His administration has made clear that it sees the sanctions as a way to get Iran to come to the table with significant concessions, paving the way for a diplomatic deal good enough for Trump to call a victory.

But meaningful Iranian concessions have proved elusive even after the initial weeks-long bombing campaign. Washington may be able to secure a narrower arrangement over the Strait of Hormuz, but that would leave unresolved the broader nuclear, missile and regional threats that originally drove the war.

Sanctions, renewed military pressure and diplomacy can all create leverage, but their effectiveness depends on what Washington wants that leverage to achieve. A strategy aimed at securing a face-saving deal requires a different mix of pressure and compromise than one that would force deeper strategic concessions, and a different strategy again if the goal is simply to weaken the Islamic Republic as much as possible or bring it down for good.

“I think the Trump........

© The Times of Israel